When 73,208 fans file into the New Orleans Superdome for the Super Bowl on Sunday, they'll have to follow the usual rules: no booze, no weapons, no fireworks, and no food (though food and beer can be purchased inside the stadium at exorbitant rates).

They'll also be prevented from bringing in any wireless equipment that might interfere with the proper workings of the Superdome Wi-Fi network. Lots of time and money went into giving ticket holders a wireless connection that rivals the one in their living rooms, and the NFL doesn't want anyone messing it up.

"The NFL has a very robust frequency coordination solution in place," Dave Stewart, director of IT and production for Superdome management firm SMG, told me in a phone interview. "Every device that enters the building has to go through a frequency scan and be authorized to enter. At the perimeter the devices are identified and tagged. If they present a potential for interference, they are remediated at that moment. Either the channel is changed or it is denied access. It's all stopped at the perimeter for this event."

In Stewart's words, the goal is to prevent any "rogue access points or rogue equipment from attempting to operate in the same frequency" as the stadium Wi-Fi network ("rogue" as in "not under the control of the system administrators").

During the Super Bowl, the network will be able to handle up to 30,000 simultaneous connections, which should be enough.

It's hard to imagine fans, press, or stadium staff deliberately trying to sabotage Super Bowl Wi-Fi, but some may do so unintentionally. Interference can be produced by "everything from someone operating a network wireless camera to someone operating pyrotechnics equipment that utilizes wireless service to trigger their equipment," Stewart said. "Imagine if you were to bring in a wireless camera and that wireless camera is tuned to the 2.4GHz frequency range [also used by Wi-Fi] and is continually broadcasting a signal. Anything that's going to operate in the same frequency range has the potential to cause interference. Some of those interfering devices are minimal, but others are impactful."

The biggest concern, he said, comes from "non-Wi-Fi-compliant continuous broadcast devices such as wireless cameras."

The best defense against such "rogue" wireless networking is to prevent the wrong devices from coming into the stadium, but you can't stop everything. "You can't stop a laptop from coming in. Working press needs to use that," he said. Yet laptops can be problematic if their owners try to create their own private Wi-Fi networks. "Anyone who enters the facility with a laptop has the ability to become a rogue by going to ad hoc [wireless networking] mode," Stewart said.

That's why wireless security doesn't stop when the game starts; the Superdome will use spectral analysis equipment to detect interference. "We're always monitoring the network. So we have a plan in place if there is an interfering signal to identify that and remediate that problem," Stewart said.

So if you're broadcasting a rogue wireless signal, well, you might just get a tap on the shoulder from a Superdome employee. Isn't it more fun just to watch the game, anyway?

Is the TV timeout over yet?

Well, maybe not. The NFL manages to spread 60 minutes of clock time across three hours in a typical game. What with time running off the clock between plays and the typical play lasting about four seconds, an average game ends up with only 11 minutes of action. And given how long Super Bowl halftime shows last, the game might not be over till Monday.

So fans have plenty of time to check their e-mail, upload pictures to Facebook, or get instant replays and game-related information on their mobile devices. While the NFL's strict control over wireless equipment might sound draconian, it's in service of the greater good: Wi-Fi for everyone who wants it.

The Superdome already had one of the most robust cellular networks among football stadiums, because 18 months ago AT&T built a carrier-neutral distributed antenna system on site to boost mobile signals. But that wasn't enough. Cellular providers want Wi-Fi in places like the Superdome because it offloads traffic from the cellular network, and fans like it because they're less likely to drop their connections or wait for videos to buffer.

The Superdome (or the Mercedes-Benz Superdome, to get the branding right) previously had Wi-Fi—but only for staff, press, and systems like ticketing. "That was not getting us where the NFL wanted us to be relative to the Super Bowl needs," said Superdome General Manager Alan Freeman. The new, Super Bowl-scale Wi-Fi network was just put in this season, with trial runs in a couple of late-season Saints games and in the Sugar Bowl. The Super Bowl will be the first time the network is publicly advertised as available to all fans, so the load will be greater. No password will be required to get on the Wi-Fi network.

More than 700 wireless access points will distribute signals inside the Superdome. Another 250 access points will provide Wi-Fi outside the stadium, including in parking lots and in Champions Square. (Another 300 access points are in the adjacent New Orleans Arena, which hosts the city's pro basketball team.)

During the Super Bowl, the network will be able to handle up to 30,000 simultaneous connections, which should be enough. At last year's Super Bowl in Indianapolis, Wi-Fi from 604 access points supported 8,260 simultaneous connections at its peak, while 12,946 attendees were on the Wi-Fi at some point during the game. 225GB of data was downloaded and 145GB uploaded, with peaks of 75Mbps down and 42Mbps up. (We're told the cell network for all carriers at last year's Super Bowl handled another 560GB of data total, including downloads and uploads.) Usage is expected to be higher this year, but it's impossible to predict exactly how much it will increase.

Cisco/Verizon

Superdome management thinks it's ready. In testing, "We're constantly seeing 20Mbps up and 20 megs down in all areas of the building," Stewart said. "That, of course, will change depending on the load, but the system is backed up by multiple redundant links to the Internet."

This isn't consumer gear (a business Cisco is getting out of); these are high-density access points, designed for stadiums, with directional antennas that send the signals to just the right places. The Superdome has a ceiling, of course, but it's far above fans' heads. If antennas weren't positioned correctly, signals could be wasted in all that empty air. Using directional antennas lets the Superdome "control the signal and have a seamless handoff from one section to another when a fan roams, or when someone comes online," Stewart noted.

We need more channels!

The network supports 802.11n and previous Wi-Fi protocols 802.11a, b, and g, using both the 2.4GHz and 5GHz bands. Unfortunately, many fans' devices are capable only of getting on 2.4GHz.

The 2.4GHz band has 11 channels that can be used for Wi-Fi in North America, but because the channels overlap, the Superdome uses just channels 1, 6, and 11. In the 5GHz band, with its 23 non-overlapping channels, the Superdome network can use just about every available channel (while making sure not to interfere with radar).

High-end mobile devices like the iPad, iPhone 5, and Samsung Galaxy S III support 5GHz. Newer versions of the Kindle Fire support 5GHz, too; Google's Nexus 7 Android tablet does not. Many phones are still stuck on 2.4GHz as well.

"We're very anxious and can't wait for everyone to get on 5GHz," Stewart said. Even better will be when the world moves on to 802.11ac networks and devices, because the next-generation protocol uses multi-user MIMO (multiple-input/multiple-output) to transmit signals more efficiently. But that's not happening soon. While some home routers support 802.11ac, they're not NFL caliber.

"There's no commercially available high-density 802.11ac equipment that I know of," Stewart said.

In a worst-case scenario, high numbers of fans streaming video could cause congestion and slow down fans' connections. "This is not unlimited. There's no such thing," said Kelley Carr, co-founder of Cellular Specialities, a consultant who helped oversee the design and implementation of the network for the big game.

What they have for the Super Bowl is probably good enough for this year, though. "We're all confident it will work, just based on our experience in the past," said Carr. "As long as 100 percent of the people in there don't take out their cellular device and switch it to the Wi-Fi network, it should be fine."

With an average signal strength rating of -60dB, fans in their seats should get a signal comparable to what they would have at home if they were sitting about 20 feet from their wireless router, Stewart said.

This will be the seventh Super Bowl to be hosted at the Superdome since 1978—and such access would have been unthinkable in any of the previous games. Freeman noted that "from a technological perspective, these mega-events keep getting more complex, exponentially in some cases, every year."

Taking into account various smartphone trends as well as the cost of SB tickets this works out to the standard rate of approximately 100% oversubscription. Which is fine when people use the network at different times. In this case I'm guessing "were going to need a bigger boat" to keep people even close to satisfied.

Way back in 2003, Sportvision was using wireless transmitters to get GPS data from cars and transmit it back to create the arrows that follow cars you see on broadcasts. They were getting a lot of interference, and couldn't get signal from half of the track, making their system useless. They used gear to hunt the offending signal. It turns out it came from a microwave (I believe that was the device) in an infield RV. The thing must have been damaged, and was emitting all sorts of interference. Unplugging it fixed everything

Isn't it more fun just to watch the game, anyway? ... Well, maybe not. The NFL manages to spread 60 minutes of clock time across three hours in a typical game. What with time running off the clock between plays and the typical play lasting about four seconds, an average game ends up with only 11 minutes of action. And given how long Super Bowl halftime shows last, the game might not be over till Monday.

For some reason, I can't imagine there being the same problem if they would only switch to rugby. I'm not much of a sports fan, but I think there's got to be something very wrong with a "sport" where most of the time is spent standing around and chatting, or gathering with team mates for a pep talk or "huddle" to pretend to share secret information about what trickery you're planning to pull next, or, which "secret weapons" you're about to use to pull the game back from the brink of certain disaster (personally, I think that if you need a huddle to communicate in this way, you've not trained well enough together: I've known soccer striker team-mates who could communicate almost telepathically, without ever saying a word). Remind me, how much do they pay for a ticket to these games?

They can't stop people from using 4G/LTE so I doubt that is the main reason...

The cell service around the Superbowl is going to be so overloaded that the idea of streaming realtime video over it is laughable.

Not to mention the streamer would be paying for it as opposed to leeching off the supplied wifi. Are pirate streams of these games even a concern? I would suspect that a radio broadcast would be preferable to a shaky cam video feed.

A lot of that time is spent retrieving the ball, measuring where it landed, moving markers, commercial breaks, timeouts, etc... Much of it is largely unavoidable without major changes to the game itself and the TV viewing model.

The amusing subtext of this is that people still need personal entertainment while attending one of the year's premier entertainment events.

Did you read the article. You're there for 3+ hours to see 11 minutes of action, plus a possibly entertaining halftime show (you might get Prince..or you might get the Black Eye Peas).

There's been nearly 50 Super Bowls. People weren't dying of boredom at the pre-WiFi ones.

Last year I went to an NHL game. During the breaks I had a drink and talked trash with my brother and sister. The only time I used my smartphone was to upload a photo to Facebook just before the game started. Do Super Bowl attendees live in solitary little bubbles unaffected by their surroundings? The last baseball game I went to was 8 years ago, and I didn't even have a smartphone. I survived that, even though baseball is probably even less action-packed than football.

I'm just amused that people nowadays will roll over and die because they can't access a social network or stream videos at some event.

Interesting that they went with Cisco 3500 series WAPs, when the 3600 series is the best Cisco has. Also, even the 3600 series is only rated for 200 users on 2.4ghz and another 200 on 5ghz. It'll be interesting to see how this network performs during the game.

Isn't it more fun just to watch the game, anyway? ... Well, maybe not. The NFL manages to spread 60 minutes of clock time across three hours in a typical game. What with time running off the clock between plays and the typical play lasting about four seconds, an average game ends up with only 11 minutes of action. And given how long Super Bowl halftime shows last, the game might not be over till Monday.

For some reason, I can't imagine there being the same problem if they would only switch to rugby. I'm not much of a sports fan, but I think there's got to be something very wrong with a "sport" where most of the time is spent standing around and chatting, or gathering with team mates for a pep talk or "huddle" to pretend to share secret information about what trickery you're planning to pull next, or, which "secret weapons" you're about to use to pull the game back from the brink of certain disaster (personally, I think that if you need a huddle to communicate in this way, you've not trained well enough together: I've known soccer striker team-mates who could communicate almost telepathically, without ever saying a word). Remind me, how much do they pay for a ticket to these games?

lolwut? 11 minutes of play out of 60 minutes of clock time?

On the OTHER football (you know, the one that's played with your feet) we start waving pitchforks if the play time drops more than 50% (45m play to 90m clock).

I'm just amused that people nowadays will roll over and die because they can't access a social network or stream videos at some event.

I'm amused that you think that the people who watched the last 40 some odd Superbowls at their respective locations wouldn't have liked something to do during the downtime. They didn't use smartphones to check their social networks or stream videos because those things weren't available to them. Had they been I am sure they would have seen heavy use even at the first Superbowl. Football (and most sports, really) is only remotely entertaining in fits and starts. Being able to fill the rest of that time because you can doesn't mean you wouldn't survive without it, it only means that you won't be yawning and falling asleep during the 90% of the time the players are on the field talking about plays so you can be awake during the 10% of the time they're executing what they talked about.

Call me cynical, but every high volume, high profile wifi event I've ever been to has been almost a complete meltdown. I went to the 12 hours of Sebring a couple of years back and you'd be lucky to get modem speeds (when it worked at 2am in the morning).

The amusing subtext of this is that people still need personal entertainment while attending one of the year's premier entertainment events.

Did you read the article. You're there for 3+ hours to see 11 minutes of action, plus a possibly entertaining halftime show (you might get Prince..or you might get the Black Eye Peas).

There's been nearly 50 Super Bowls. People weren't dying of boredom at the pre-WiFi ones.

Last year I went to an NHL game. During the breaks I had a drink and talked trash with my brother and sister. The only time I used my smartphone was to upload a photo to Facebook just before the game started. Do Super Bowl attendees live in solitary little bubbles unaffected by their surroundings? The last baseball game I went to was 8 years ago, and I didn't even have a smartphone. I survived that, even though baseball is probably even less action-packed than football.

I'm just amused that people nowadays will roll over and die because they can't access a social network or stream videos at some event.

I'm guessing that a large percentage of the crowd at a superbowl is more likely to do other things than the crowd at a normal game. It seems much more like a party/social event than a game.

Isn't it more fun just to watch the game, anyway? ... Well, maybe not. The NFL manages to spread 60 minutes of clock time across three hours in a typical game. What with time running off the clock between plays and the typical play lasting about four seconds, an average game ends up with only 11 minutes of action. And given how long Super Bowl halftime shows last, the game might not be over till Monday.

For some reason, I can't imagine there being the same problem if they would only switch to rugby. I'm not much of a sports fan, but I think there's got to be something very wrong with a "sport" where most of the time is spent standing around and chatting, or gathering with team mates for a pep talk or "huddle" to pretend to share secret information about what trickery you're planning to pull next, or, which "secret weapons" you're about to use to pull the game back from the brink of certain disaster (personally, I think that if you need a huddle to communicate in this way, you've not trained well enough together: I've known soccer striker team-mates who could communicate almost telepathically, without ever saying a word). Remind me, how much do they pay for a ticket to these games?

I've played and watched all 3 sports. For better or worse the intensity of American football is greater than Rugby. I'm talking about the physical impacts involved not the intensity of players effort in the sport. American football is like watching 6-9 car crashes every play. We are seeing studies of the repercussions of this style of play too. It takes time to recover from that 40 yard/meter dash every play for receivers, the big boys on the line to get up off the ground pull up their pants and get back in formation.

I agree though it does take a long time. It would be cool if they would just put wireless headsets in all players helmets but that would only shave off 5-10 seconds per play cycle. I don't watch sports now but I found soccer and rugby the least appealing to sit down and watch - I'd rather play Rugby though.

Now if they put American football pads on Australian rules football game and slightly alter the rules then that would be a very cool sport to watch.

What with time running off the clock between plays and the typical play lasting about four seconds, an average game ends up with only 11 minutes of action.

Oh please. That's like saying a key press takes only a few milliseconds, so the average Ars reporter only puts in 11 minutes of effort during his 8 hour work day.

I quite enjoy football and appreciate sarcasm, but I'm not sure I can agree with your analogy.

There is a LOT of dead time in a football game. I think the NFL network shows replays of games they compress down into 30 min or so - and that's still keeping in some of the announcers and play-by-play reviews.

Call me cynical, but every high volume, high profile wifi event I've ever been to has been almost a complete meltdown. I went to the 12 hours of Sebring a couple of years back and you'd be lucky to get modem speeds (when it worked at 2am in the morning).

What with time running off the clock between plays and the typical play lasting about four seconds, an average game ends up with only 11 minutes of action.

Oh please. That's like saying a key press takes only a few milliseconds, so the average Ars reporter only puts in 11 minutes of effort during his 8 hour work day.

I quite enjoy football and appreciate sarcasm, but I'm not sure I can agree with your analogy.

There is a LOT of dead time in a football game. I think the NFL network shows replays of games they compress down into 30 min or so - and that's still keeping in some of the announcers and play-by-play reviews.

I prefer to record a game on my DVR, then skip through commercials, timeouts, half time, etc. Also if a team is dragging out the clock, can easily skip the time between plays. Can usually watch a game in a bout 45 minutes or so.

I prefer to record a game on my DVR, then skip through commercials, timeouts, half time, etc. Also if a team is dragging out the clock, can easily skip the time between plays. Can usually watch a game in a bout 45 minutes or so.

What? If it wasn't for the 49ers playing, the best part would be the commercials!